The Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Donaldson
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Williams
|
Professional subordinate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
The jury
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Elizabeth Loftus
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jury
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Defendant judicial oversight |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. JAFFE
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Visoski
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Madam Foreperson
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Gaffney
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mrs. Hesse
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
unidentified speaker
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Rodgers
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Cimberly Espinosa
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Boies
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein’s Representative
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court proceeding regarding trial schedule, closing arguments, and jury deliberation timing relati... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings/Trial discussions | Courtroom (referenced by Tr... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell's Sentencing Proceeding | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberations and Court Response to Note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss Mann Act counts for lack of specificity or to compel Government to s... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Detention Hearing Decision | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss indictment due to alleged actual prejudice from Government's delay i... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss indictment based on fabricated stories and perjurious conspiracy by ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Payment of criminal monetary penalties within 30 (or 60) days after release from imprisonment, ba... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing discussing attorney misconduct and potential retrial. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Introduction of Government Exhibit 1004 (Stipulation) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court Recess pending verdict | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding Exhibit 3505-005 | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceeding sidebar or argument regarding courtroom logistics and COVID protocols. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Meeting between Court and Counsel at 8:45 AM. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial sessions planned for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday before Christmas and New Year's. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | 10-minute break (Recess) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | 9 a.m. conference regarding the jury charge. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Charging Conference (Trial Tr. at 2758–61) | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of photographic exhibits and the timing of defense obj... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal sidebar/conference regarding a response to a jury question concerning witness Carolyn and a... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror No. 50 questioning during trial. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding admissibility of testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing enhancements for Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom | View |
EFTA00009899.pdf
An email exchange from April 22, 2021, regarding access to a court hearing scheduled for the following day. A redacted individual requests a link to watch the hearing. The response clarifies there is no video, provides a scheduling order with public dial-in info, and offers to coordinate with the Court to provide a specific access line designated for victims.
EFTA00009831.pdf
This document is an email from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim regarding the confinement conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell on April 13, 2021. Sternheim inquires if the recipient can persuade the Marshal to allow Maxwell access to legal materials while in the cell block, noting that Maxwell sat idle for over three hours that morning. Sternheim suggests she may seek a Court order if the issue cannot be resolved.
DOJ-OGR-00000152.tif
This document is a legal opinion or court order concerning pretrial proceedings related to Maxwell. It addresses motions in limine, pretrial disclosures, and scheduling, citing legal precedents like United States v. Thompson and United States v. Percevault. The Court sets a schedule for disclosures and notes that the S2 superseding indictment moots Maxwell's grand jury challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00000136.tif
This document is a legal ruling or excerpt from a legal ruling concerning a defendant named Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's attempts to dismiss her indictment, stating that she failed to prove her accusers fabricated stories or that the government's delay caused actual prejudice, and that the charges in the S1 superseding indictment are sufficiently specific.
DOJ-OGR-00000117.tif
This document outlines several motions made by 'Maxwell' in a legal proceeding, including motions to dismiss perjury counts, sever counts, strike indictment language, compel discovery, and dismiss all counts related to grand jury indictments. It also states that Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement from September 2007 does not prevent the current prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00015284.tif
This document appears to be a page from a UK Land Registry document regarding Title number NGL343652. It details the 'Proprietorship register' specifically listing modified covenants under the Land Registration Act 1925 and a restriction dated June 30, 1986, regarding the disposition of land by a sole proprietor. The document bears DOJ-OGR Bates stamping.
DOJ-OGR-00018373.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a witness named Kate testifies about visiting Ghislaine Maxwell's house for tea. Kate explains she was excited to befriend Maxwell, who was friends with a man Kate was dating. She describes the house's exterior and identifies a photograph of it, marked as Government Exhibit 702, which is then offered into evidence without objection.
DOJ-OGR-00018363.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing proceedings related to evidence. The court admits 'Defendant's Trial Exhibit B' based on a prior stipulation regarding items found at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home in 2005. Following this, the government, represented by Ms. Comey, moves to enter a large number of redacted exhibits into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018350.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the Court. The conversation centers on the government's plan to question a witness about photos of celebrities and nude women in Epstein's residence without submitting the photos as evidence. The Court reserves judgment on the admission of any photo exhibits but indicates it finds the proposed line of questioning acceptable.
DOJ-OGR-00018346.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a court ruling regarding the admissibility of photographic evidence in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court decides to admit photos of Jeffrey Epstein's apartment and massage room to corroborate the testimony of a witness named 'Jane'. The admission of photos of the massage room is conditional upon the redaction of pictures on the wall.
DOJ-OGR-00018260.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson, by an attorney, Ms. Comey, regarding three pieces of evidence labeled Government Exhibits 238, 239, and 240. Mr. Parkinson identifies the exhibits as depicting the first floor and north side of a building.
DOJ-OGR-00018233.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on the logistics of presenting evidence, including whether to provide a paper binder to the court and how a video will be displayed in the main courtroom but not in an overflow room. The judge gives instructions to ensure the public can view exhibits after the video is shown.
DOJ-OGR-00018083.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. The testimony concerns a communal message pad kept on a kitchen desk. Following the testimony, an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the admission of certain messages as evidence, arguing they are hearsay while conceding that messages in Mr. Alessi's or his wife's handwriting have been authenticated.
DOJ-OGR-00018041.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness, Ms. Drescher. She is questioned about a young woman named Virginia who frequently visited Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home while he and Ms. Maxwell were present. Ms. Drescher testifies that Virginia appeared to be 14 or 15 years old and that she was sometimes told to pick Virginia up.
DOJ-OGR-00018035.jpg
This court transcript details the testimony of a witness, identified as a driver named Alessi. The witness states that on approximately two occasions, he saw a person named 'Jane' with luggage at Mr. Epstein's house in Palm Beach. He further testifies to driving Jane, Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, and others to the airport and witnessing Jane board their plane.
DOJ-OGR-00017994.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Alessi. Alessi describes the layout of a bathroom and identifies the 'housekeeper bedroom' as his own, stating it was on the opposite side of the house from the master bedroom. The proceeding is interrupted by MS. COMEY, who requests to show the witness and the court 'Government Exhibit 299'.
DOJ-OGR-00017781.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney questions Jane about a past lawsuit allegedly filed by her and her mother against her teacher for pulling her hair, which Jane denies knowing about. Another attorney, Ms. Menninger, discusses the presentation of certified court exhibits (J-7, J-8, J-9) with the judge to clarify the record.
DOJ-OGR-00017756.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on a claim Jane made against Ms. Maxwell via a 'claims program,' which resulted in an initial offer of $5 million. The witness confirms receiving the offer and a subsequent wire transfer, but suggests the amount wired was not the full $5 million.
DOJ-OGR-00017738.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on Jane hiring a 'tough litigator' around 2015 to counter press allegations that she was a 'Yugoslavian sex slave'. The examination probes into payments made to this lawyer, specifically questioning a 'quarter of a million dollars' amount which Jane denies in this testimony, and confirms she spoke with the government on September 2, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00017726.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane, who is asked if she has seen pictures of someone named Sophie since September 2019. An attorney, Ms. Moe, objects, and another attorney, Ms. Menninger, provides 'Lack of evidence' as the grounds, which the judge questions.
DOJ-OGR-00017691.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. They are discussing a complex legal issue regarding an amended rule and a Second Circuit decision on the admissibility of civil litigation settlements in a criminal case. The judge expresses doubt that the rule amendment overrules the binding Second Circuit precedent and asks Ms. Moe, representing the government, to research the issue.
DOJ-OGR-00017678.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioner challenges Jane's memory and consistency regarding her prior statements to the government about encounters involving herself, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Epstein. The questioning focuses on whether Jane was ever alone with the two and whether Maxwell ever touched her, with Jane repeatedly stating she does not recall specific details but denying the assertion that she doesn't recall being touched.
DOJ-OGR-00017671.jpg
This document is a page of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on Jane's prior statements to government agents about Jeffrey Epstein's behavior, specifically whether he controlled where people sat in movie theaters. The transcript includes a legal objection by an attorney, Ms. Moe, which is overruled by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017648.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on inconsistencies between her testimony and prior statements made to her younger brother and a journalist regarding an 'initial meeting' with Epstein. Specifically, the questioner probes whether Jane initially omitted mentioning the presence of a woman or Ghislaine.
DOJ-OGR-00015141.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 11, 2025, details a motion by the Deputy Attorney General to unseal grand jury materials from the Maxwell and Epstein cases. The motion is justified by significant public interest and a directive from the President, following a July 6, 2025, DOJ/FBI memorandum on the Epstein investigation. In response, the court has requested additional information from the government to rule on the motion.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity